Allen Hirsch Loc: Oakland, CA

That must vary by copy, because I've never noticed it on mine.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Mark,

Not long after I switched from film (i.e. full frame) to crop sensor digital ten years ago I started searching for an ultrawide to replace the Canon 17-35/2.8L I'd been using, but was no longer wide enough. I took four different ultrawides for fairly thorough test drives: Canon 10-22mm, Tamron 11-18mm, Sigma 10-20mm and Tokina 12-24mm. Following are my conclusions then and some observations since...

IMO the Tamron 11-18mm, now discontinued for some years, was the weakest of the bunch. It was rather bulky for such a narrow range of focal lengths and variable aperture lens. It's main saving grace was that it was the cheapest of the bunch. But it had more optical issues than I could live with.

The Sigma 10-20mm that I compared has been revised a couple times since, so might be a very different lens now... but back then I rated it the second worst of the bunch, mostly for flare issues and some image softness. It was also the second cheapest.

Today there are two versions of the Sigma 10-20mm: One with variable aperture that's cheaper, updated optically and with HSM (like USM focus drive). The other is considerably more expensive and quite large (82mm filters), with a non-variable f3.5 max aperture.

Sigma also now offers an 8-16mm, which is the widest of the ultrawide (there's a big difference with just one or two mm, at the wide end), has some inevitable, inherent wide angle distortion effects and is one of the more expensive. I haven't used any of these last three, so if interested you'll have to search around for info about them.

Tamron replaced the 11-18mm with a 10-24mm some years ago. I also haven't used this lens much, have heard it's generally an improvement over the 11-18. Most think it's a wee bit soft between 20-24mm in the zoom range, but fine at other focal lengths. It's the widest ranging zoom of the bunch and one of the more affordable models.

I ended up buying the first version of the Tokina 12-24/4. The image quality was quite good and it feels like one of the best built. In fact, it reminded me a lot of the L-series lens it was replacing... very similar in size, shape and construction. At the time, it also was a couple hundred $ less than the Canon 10-22mm, but very close to it in image quality, and felt even better built. I also liked that it was a non-variable f4 aperture... the only ultrawide with that feature at the time.

Today there is a second version of the Tokina 12-24mm offered. There really isn't much difference in the Canon mount version I and II. The Nikon mount version got a built-in AF motor (similar to AF-S Nikkors), so was a much bigger deal. Tokina fiddled with them all a little (supposedly "improved coatings" on the Canon version) and re-issued all mount versions as "Mark IIs" at the same time anyway.

There is also the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (also now in a Mark II version). It's the only f2.8 ultrawide. If anything, it's a wee bit sharper than the Toki 12-24mm, right up there with the Canon 10-22. However, it's highly prone to flare issues (which can be a common problem with ultrawides, simply due to their extra wide angle of view). It feels to be built about the same as the 12-24... in other words, excellent. Tends to sell for about $100 US more than the 12-24, though. And that's for a very narrow range of focal lengths, just to get f2.8 (which, to be honest, isn't really all that necessary for many, heck, maybe even most ultrawide users).

The Canon 10-22mm has come down in price in recent years and has the best image quality of them all. It's sharp edge to edge, well corrected for an ultrawide zoom (tho there are still inherent wide angle effects) and it is the most flare resistant of all... exceptionally so, in fact. It's a bit more plasticky than the Tokina and Sigma lenses, but that doesn't seem to effect durability and it does have USM. I now use one of these too. Got it used for a good price a couple years ago (you now can buy new for about what I paid, the price has come down). Another minor negative, the 10-22mm's matching lens hood is huge.... as in a small Frisbee size! I tried to get by without it, but tests showed it's effective so I now carry the hood with me too, even tho it's a bit of a pain. I rank the 10-22mm as the best of the ultrawides avail. for Canon crop cameras, against which all the others are measured (and to be fair, I haven't tried them all).

I haven't noticed any CA on my Canon 10-22mm. While it's possible there's a problem lens or two out there, I'd venture to guess that anyone who does see a lot of CA has a cheap "protection" filter on their lens (I only use protection filters in extreme shooting conditions... My lenses all go filterless until a filter is actually needed, and then I try to only use very good quality, multi-coated).

A couple things about the Tokina zooms... First, they rotate the focus and zoom rings the opposite direction from Canon... they rotate Nikon (and others) style. Also, Tokina uses an interesting "focus clutch" mechanism to switch back and forth from AF to manual focus... you slide the focus ring forward or backward. I worried a bit that these differences might bother me when shooting, but after using the 12-24mm in the field I quickly found it was a non-issue. I think some Tamron lenses might use similar arrangements of ring rotation and/or to turn AF on and off on (tho I can't recall if the 11-18 did or not).

The Tokina also doesn't have USM-style focus drive. Before using it, I worried it might be slow to focus. That also turned out to be a non-issue. It's quite fast focusing simply because an ultrawide only has to move it's focus elements a tiny bit to achieve focus. Plus a very wide lens naturally has so much depth of field, any minor focus error is completely covered.

So, in a nutshell, I'd rank the lenses as follows, from best to worst...

1. Canon 10-22mm
2. Tokina 12-24mm
3. Tokina 11-16/2.8
4. Sigma 10-20 (early, non-HSM version)
5. Tamron 11-18mm

I haven't used, so can't rank: Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm (more recent HSM version), Sigma 10-20/3.5 HSM, Sigma 8-16mm HSM.

FYI, there is also a Sigma 12-24mm.... That's actually a full frame capable lens - the widest of the wide for FF, in fact - costs considerably than any of the above (but nowhere near what an EF 14/2.8L costs). It has it's share of optical issues, as one might expect with such an extreme zoom. It would be sort of wasteful to spend so much for a FF lens only to use it on a crop camera when there are more capable crop-only lenses for less money. I only include it here because you might see it while shopping.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Have fun shopping!

Popeye33

Canon makes a 15-85mm that is rated at 5 stars. I'm thinking about buying it your myself.

bb

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Of the listed lenses the Sigma is best. The Tamron is mediocre at best and the Tokina suffers from flare and CA problems in my understanding.

Allen Hirsch Loc: Oakland, CA

You ignored the Canon 10-22 at the top of the list, I think.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It is the best of the lot, CA aside, but I thought the OP said it was too pricey. In that territory I would go for the Sigma 8-16, definitely the best of the lot.

baxtercat1052

The Canon 10-22 is a truly versatile wide angle lens. It's wonderful for indoor and outdoor use. I think you'll find it perfect for your travel needs.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I suggest you read all the reviews at photozone.de

MarkfromMaine Loc: Maine

Thanks Alan!

MarkfromMaine Loc: Maine

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the extensive analysis of wide angle lenses. This was very helpful. I broke down and got the Canon 10-22. Thank goodness for credit cards. One question, my lens didn't come with a hood, should I order one? I am planning to use a polarizer on it and can't figure out how I would turn it with the tulip type of hood. I use a rubber hood on my other lenses for this reason. It also seemed that I was asking for a lot of vignetting on this lens when using a hood. What do you think?

Thanks again,

Mark

Allen Hirsch Loc: Oakland, CA

I'm not Alan - although I have the same name, just spelled differently. ;)

But I have the 10-22, with the hood, so I thought I would respond. It's a very shallow hood, so it doesn't cause vignetting if it's mounted properly.

I'm not sure a polarizer is a great idea on a super-wide lens (I seem to recall that it can create some strange effects), but the hood is shallow enough it shouldn't preclude you from turning the polarizer with it in place.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Regarding the effects of polarisers on ultrawide angle lenses.
Polarisers can give you unevenness in sky colour that becomes noticeable with ultrawides due to the large expanse of sky captured in the image.
It shows up as an unattractive dark band of blue in the sky.
http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens
This can be minimised by turning the polariser to the "off" position but that sort of defeats the purpose.
What many people use on ultrawides instead (including me) is a graduated neutral density filter that can be slid up and down to whatever sky position you require.

HOWEVER ...... polarisers have more than one use. They aren't only for darkening skies.
And for these other uses they can be very desirable - even on ultrawides.
These other uses are, taking the sheen off fur and feathers, off leaves, off rocks at a waterfall thereby allowing the colour and contrast to come through.
Also useful for taking the reflections off nonmetallic reflective surfaces eg water, glass etc to allow you to see to the bottom of the creekbed.
Polarisers can make an otherwise ordinary fern surrounded waterfall shot "pop" with saturated colour and detail.

MarkfromMaine Loc: Maine

Thanks Allen and Lighthouse! Excellent article. It really showed what you were both talking about.

Mark